The Miami Herald describes the manual and its importance and gives a flavor
of its bureaucratic contents:

"A how-to manual, it draws back a curtain on the secretive, isolated base
in 2003, more than a year into operation of the Bush administration
prison.
And it lays out -- with typical military attention to detail -- everything
from when to use pepper spray to who should witness a cavity search to how
to dig a proper Muslim grave.
It also offers the mundane details of what detainees were given at the
open-air prison camp overlooking the Caribbean, where the Pentagon today
holds about 300 war-on-terror captives at Guantanamo for possible
interrogation and trial by Military Commission.
No hair dye, it says on one page. But a double amputee got to keep a
bucket in his cell, it says."

The manual is classified 'For Official Use Only' and access was
"limited to those requiring operational and procedural knowledge in the
direct performance of their duties as well as those directly associated
with JTF-GTMO." The Department of Defense has attempted to avoid its
release and has denied the American Civil Liberties Organization [ACLU]
access under the Freedom of Information Act.

In addition to the mundane, but often chilling details - destruction of a
Styrofoam cup was a punishable offense - of the running of this high
security facility designed to facilitate interrogations and intelligence
gathering, the manual contains two major revelations. The first of these
revelations, which is the focus of both the Reuters and the New York Times
reports, is that, despite claims to the contrary, the US was hiding
detainees from the International Committee of the Red Cross [ICRC]. As
Reuters puts it:

"The manual also indicates some prisoners were designated as off limits to
visitors from the International Committee of the Red Cross, something the
military has repeatedly denied."

Each detainee is assigned to one of four ICRC visitation levels. Level A
is [p. 17.1]:

" No Access: No contact of any kind with the ICRC. This includes the
delivery of ICRC mail."

In fact, for only one of the four levels was the IRC allowed unrestricted
access to ask the detainee whatever questions they deemed appropriate. The
other levels allowed only visual access or questions about "health and
welfare only." The camp commander seemed determined to prevent the ICRC
from being able to obtain accurate information about detainee treatment.

Given the repeated denials that detainees were withheld from the ICRC, we
have here additional evidence that, when it comes to what occurs in US
detention facilities, no claims of the government should be taken as true
without independent confirmatory evidence.

The second major revelation from the SOP, mentioned in passing by Reuters,
concerns the routine use of isolation and sensory deprivation on
Guantanamo detainees in order to weaken them and make them ready for
interrogations. As Reuters reports:

"It says incoming prisoners are to be held in near-isolation for the first
two weeks to foster dependence on interrogators and `enhance and exploit
the disorientation and disorganization felt by a newly arrived detainee in
the interrogation process.' Styrofoam cups must be confiscated if
prisoners have written on them, apparently because prisoners have used
cups to pass notes to other captives. `If the cup is damaged or destroyed,
the detainee will be disciplined for destruction of government property,'
the rules say."

Here is the actual language from the SOP [Section 4-20, p. 4.3]
demonstrating the precision with which abuse was administered. In fact, it
makes clear that Reuters got it partially wrong in that the
"near-isolation" was to last at least four weeks, not two, and that it
could be continued indefinitely, beyond the four-week (30 day):

a. Phase One Behavior Management Plan (First thirty days or as directed
by JIG [Joint Intelligence Group]). The purpose of the Behavior Management
Plan is to enhance and exploit the disorientation and disorganization felt
by a newly arrived detainee in the interrogation process. It concentrates
on isolating the detainee and fostering dependence of the detainee on his
interrogator. During the first two weeks at Camp Delta, classify the
detainees as Level 5 and house in a Maximum Security Unit (MSU) Block.
During this time, the following conditions will apply:
(1) Restricted contact: No ICRC or Chaplain contact
(2) No books or mail privileges
(3) MREs for all meals.
(4) Basic comfort items only:
(a) ISO Mat
(b) One blanket
(c) One towel
(d) Toothpaste/finger toothbrush
(e) One Styrofoam cup
(f) Bar of soap
(g) Camp Rules
(h) No Koran, prayer beads, prayer cap.
(5) Mail writing and delivery will be at the direction of the J-2.
b. Phase Two Behavior Management Plan. The two-week period following Phase
1 will continue the process of isolating the detainee and fostering
dependence on the interrogator. Until the JIG Commander changes his
classification, the detainee will remain a Level 5 with the following:
(1) Continued MSU
(2) Koran, prayer beads and prayer cap distributed by interrogator
(3) Contacts decided by interrogator
(4) Interrogator decides when to move the
detainee to general population.

Isolation has long been a preferred measure of abuse in US detentions. As
Mark Benjamin pointed out last July in Salon, isolation and the associated
sensory deprivation, not waterboarding or other more commonly discussed
techniques, is the CIA's favorite form of torture. It has been know for
years that isolation was authorized for use at Guantanamo, even after some
of the harshest techniques used in 2002 and known to have been deployed
against Mohammed al-Qahtani were stopped from routine use and restricted
in 2003 to the so-called "varsity program." Isolation was one of the
interrogations techniques authorized by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld
in his April 16, 2003 memo. However, that memo gives a sense that
isolation is a severe, possibly illegal, technique:

"Caution: the use of isolation as an interrogation technique requires
detailed implementation instructions, including specific guidelines
regarding the length of isolation, medical and psychological review, and
approvals for extension of the length of by the appropriate level in the
chain of command. This technique is not know to have been generally used
for interrogation purposes for longer than 30 days. Those nations that
believe that detainees are subject to POW protections may view use of this
technique as inconsistent with the requirements of Geneva III, Article 13
which provides that POWs must be protected against acts of intimidation;
Article 14 which provides that POWs are entitled to respect for their
person; Article 34 which prohibits coercion and Article 126 which ensures
access and basic standards of treatment. Although the provisions of Geneva
are not applicable to the interrogation of unlawful combatants,
consideration should be given to these views prior to application of this
technique."

The Guantanmo SOP now provides official documentation that, at the time of
the Rumsfeld memo and despite its warnings regarding the techniques'
potential illegality and physical and psychological dangers, isolation was
routinely used by the Defense Department at Guantanamo on all new
detainees. The Rumsfeld memo complements the SOP in that it documents the
central role of "medical and psychological review," and, thus, medical and
psychological personnel in the administration of this technique.

Isolation is as damaging as other, more prominent, abusive interrogation
techniques. The recent Physicians for Human Rights-Human Rights First
report, Leave No Marks: Enhanced Interrogation Techniques and the Risk of
Criminality, details the negative effects of isolation and sensory
deprivation:

"People who are exposed to isolation for the first time develop a group of
symptoms that include `bewilderment, anxiety, frustration, dejection,
boredom, obsessive thoughts or ruminations, depression, and, in some
cases, hallucination'....

Prolonged isolation has been demonstrated to result in increased stress,
abnormal neuroendocrine function, changes in blood pressure and
inflammatory stress responses....

Findings from clinical research performed by prominent psychologists such
as Dr. Stuart Grassian and Dr. Craig Haney, highlight the destructive
impact of solitary confinement. Effects include depression, anxiety,
difficulties with concentration and memory, hypersensitivity to external
stimuli, hallucination and perceptual distortions, paranoia, suicidal
thoughts and behavior, and problems with impulse control" [p. 32].

These findings regarding negative effects make clear that attempts to
prevent torture and detainee abuse need to curtail the use of isolation to
an absolute minimum, only potentially acceptable when needed for temporary
management of unruly or dangerous detainees. It should never be sanctioned
as a routine tool for "fostering dependence on the interrogator." Such
uses are immoral and are likely violations of the UN Convention Against
Torture and the US Torture and War Crimes Acts. As thee PHR-HRF report
argues:

"The medical impact of sensory deprivation and prolonged isolation
supports the conclusion that both techniques of interrogation may be
considered prosecutable acts of "torture"or "cruel or inhuman
treatment"under the WCA or Torture Act because they cause "severe"and
"serious" mental pain and suffering. The lasting depression and
posttraumatic stress disorder that victims of isolation suffer constitute
the prolonged and/or non-transitory mental harm required for mental pain
to be considered severe or serious. Moreover, isolation and sensory
deprivation in interrogations is likely calculated to "disrupt the
senses or personality." "

Of relevance to those of us struggling to change American Psychological
Association policy on psychologist participation in interrogations, the
APA included clauses in its 2007 resolution against torture that allows
continued participation in the use of isolation [and sensory deprivation]
in certain circumstances:

"This unequivocal condemnation includes, but is by no means limited to, an
absolute prohibition for psychologists against... the following used for
the purposes of eliciting information in an interrogation process: ...
isolation, sensory deprivation and over-stimulation and/or sleep
deprivation used in a manner that represents significant pain or suffering
or in a manner that a reasonable person would judge to cause lasting
harm."

The APA inclusion of this carefully-qualified language led many APA
critics, as well as certain reporters to wonder will psychologists still
abet torture? It is therefore essential that the APA clarify the meaning
of these apparent "loopholes. "

Recent attempts by the APA to address the meaning of these "loopholes"
raise the possibility that APA leaders, reeling under the impact of
massive protests among members and criticism in the press, are looking to
resolve any ambiguities in the 2007 Resolution. But so far, the APA
leadership have failed to make a clear, unequivocal statement that this
use of isolation at Guantanamo is unethical. In a recent widely circulated
letter by the APA Director of Ethics, he stated:

The third and final category of techniques consists of techniques that may
not be "used in a manner that represents significant pain or suffering or
in a manner that a reasonable person would judge to cause lasting harm."
In my opinion, the description of these behaviors-isolation, sensory
deprivation and over-stimulation, and sleep deprivation-suffered from not
having adequate time to find wording that conveyed the authors' intention.
As I'm sure you recall, the discussions focused on the definition of these
words and precisely what the implications of an absolute prohibition would
be. As an example, an individual in detention may be separated and placed
in a cell in isolation, in order to prevent that individual from colluding
with another detainee in formulating a story that is consistent between
them. Likewise, the regimen of a camp may require that detainees begin
their daily routines at a very early hour. I believe that everyone will
agree neither example would constitute impermissible isolation or sleep
deprivation, but it is important to find language that clearly separates
what is permissible from what is impermissible.

If the APA really intended that the "loophole" clauses allowing isolation in
certain circumstances, was just to cover routine uses of the kind here
mentioned, the APA should have no difficulty stating clearly and
unequivocally that the use of isolation described in the Guantanamo SOP is
unethical and that psychologists participating in that use are engaging in
unethical behavior. Further, the APA should have no trouble coming up with
clear language making these crucial distinctions.

In considering the APA's positions, we should remember that the Chief
Psychologist of the Guantanamo Joint Intelligence Group [JIG] at Guantanamo
at the time of this SOP, was none other than Colonel
<http://psychoanalystsopposewar.org/blog/2007/06/21/colonel-larry-james-obje
cts-to-our-open-letter-with-our-reply/> Larry James, who the APA chose to
introduce their 2007 Resolution on the Council floor. The SOP makes clear
that the JIG was the military unit that decided how long isolation was used
on each detainee to "enhance and exploit the disorientation and
disorganization felt by a newly arrived detainee in the interrogation
process" The Rumsfeld memo makes clear that "medical and psychological
supervision" were essential elements of this decision-making process. It is
thus likely that the JIG's psychological unit was involved in determining
exactly how much of this abuse a given detainee could tolerate. It hardly
inspires confidence in the APA's willingness to stand unequivocally against
US torture and abuse that they selected this same Col. James to make the
case for their carefully parsed and nuanced resolution. The APA has
has ignored extensive evidence from official documents and
press reports raising questions about the activities undertaken by the
psychological component of the JIG command during the time [from January
2003 for a an unknown number of months] he was stationed there. The SOP
provides additional evidence that Col. James' command was engaged in routine
abuse of detainees. Due to secrecy, we do not know exactly what activities
Col. James was involved in. But, in the absence of evidence to the contrary,
should the APA have someone who was at Guantanamo during this time represent
it's anti-torture positions? [For the record, Col. James denies that
isolation was used for interrogation purposes.]

In any case, it is time for the APA to stop word parsing and make clear, unequivocal statements about what in their view is and is not ethical. I, for one, feel that the use of isolation, as described in the Guantanamo SOP is well over the line into unethical territory. Does APA agree?

Beyond the APA and the role of psychologists, we need for Congress to take up the entire range of abusive interrogation techniques, especially including isolation and sensory deprivation. By focusing upon waterboarding as the litmus test abusive technique, the Congress, the press, and some human rights activists are ignoring the extent to which abuse is endemic in the US' national security detentions. The CIA can continue its "enhanced techniques" without waterboarding; in fact reports say that they are already doing so. But to ban isolation and sensory deprivation would cut to the core of this country's abusive treatment of detainees. Until the United States government takes this step, the U.S. will remain a torturing society.

Stephen Soldz is a psychoanalyst, psychologist, public health researcher,
and faculty member at the Boston Graduate School of Psychoanalysis. He
maintains the Psychoanalysts for Peace and Justice web site and the
Psyche, Science, and Society blog. He is a founder of the Coalition for an
Ethical Psychology, one of the organizations leading the struggle to
change American Psychological Association policy on participation in
abusive interrogations.